4 ms·
...well that makes a lot more sense now. Flashing back to my undergrad biology class, I honestly never understood what was so important about the "central dogma
by exmadscientist 2y ago
...well that makes a lot more sense now. Flashing back to my undergrad biology class, I honestly never understood what was so important about the "central dogma" or why it was so important to spend so much time on. Now, reading its origin story, it is immediately apparent why it's interesting and such an important feature of life to understand. (Tangent: anyone who complained about mRNA vaccines "corrupting your DNA" fell afoul of exactly what the central dogma is about.)
More broadly, it is fascinating to see how often this happens. So many ideas that are spread or taught in their "modern form" are trite or difficult or just disconnected. And then you see them in their original place, often in the original discoverer's words... and it's immediately obvious what they really mean and why they're so important. (Another example: Einstein's (special) theory of relativity. Read his original papers! They're short and explain everything!) I'd suggest the solution is just reading more primary source material, but unfortunately the opposite is also true: plenty of stuff is illegible in its original form, too. (Maxwell's formulation of Maxwell's equations comes to mind here.)
- kleton 2y agoIt is difficult to entirely avoid contamination by DNA. https://x.com/p_j_buckhaults/status/1861083163868672204 https://x.com/p_j_buckhaults/status/1861083163868672204
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Mathnerd314 2y agoOne way to look at it is that most college textbooks are bad. They are written by one person, who has limited time, and limited understanding. And then you have a teacher who knows even less than the textbook, trying to explain the textbook. In contrast, Wikipedia editors have all the time they care to spend on the subject (which is a lot!). They often reproduce the original discoverer's words, when appropriate. E.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_bio... uses Crick's words. Whereas in the case of Maxwell, the formulation "is credited to Oliver Heaviside". Long story short: Wikipedia has the best explanations, and if you don't think so then fix it!
- pmcarlton 2y ago> anyone who complained about mRNA vaccines "corrupting your DNA" fell afoul of exactly what the central dogma is about I don't understand how you arrive at this — while it's true they almost certainly do not "corrupt your DNA", the reasons have nothing to do with the central dogma as Crick conceived it, since information flow from RNA to DNA is not addressed by it.
- spiritbear14 2y agoYeah, I don't think they read the whole article. 'while it's true they almost certainly do not "corrupt your DNA"' I second this